9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"] for the AY 2016-17. 2. At the outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 53 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed an affidavit along with a petition seeking condonation of delay and the contents of the said affidavit are as under: "1 ...... 2. The appellant suffered from Fibula Fracture and was advised to take bed rest from 25/08/2022 to 10/10/2022 (copy of medical certificate is enclosed herewith). As such, during this period, the appellant was not in a position to attend any other matters. During this period, the Chartered Accountant of the appellant was busy and did not inform ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come at Rs. 5,78,580/-. Thereafter, by observing that on sale of the immovable property, the assessee has received full value of consideration in cash of Rs. 15,41,000/-, which is in violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act, penalty proceedings u/s. 271D of the Act was initiated by the Ld. AO and issued notices to the assessee. In response, the assessee made written submissions and explained the reasons for accepting the sale consideration in cash. The explanation given by the assessee was extracted in the order passed u/s. 271D of the Act, dated 05/02/2022. The assessee also relied on the decision of the ITAT in the case of Venkata Narayana Raju Pasuparthy vs. Addl. CIT (ITA No. 229 of 2019). However, the Ld. AO did not cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee received the disputed amount of Rs. 15,41,000/-as part of the sale consideration and deposited the same in his bank account which clearly shows the genuineness of the transaction. The Ld. AR submitted that the cash receipts were also considered while computing capital gains and taxes paid accordingly. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that the penalty levied by the Ld. AO-NFAC and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC is not sustainable in law and hence the same may be deleted. The Ld. AR relied on various case laws viz., decision of the ITAT, Bangalore 'B' Bench in the case of Sri Padmanabha Mangalore Chowta vs. Addl/Joint CIT in ITA No. 147/Bang/2022 (AY 2017-18), dated 7/3/2023; IT(IT)A No. 585/Bang/2022, dated 14/9/2022 in the case of Anuradha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been defined in the section 269SS of the Act as follows: "Specified sum" means any sum of money receivable, whether as advance or otherwise, in relation to transfer of an immovable property, whether or not the transfer takes place." 9. From the plain reading of the above section, it is noted that any person is barred from receiving from any amount otherwise by cheque or through banking channels in relation to transfer of the immovable property. Section 269SS of the Act prohibits receipt of any amount by way of cash in relation to the transfer of any immovable property. On this aspect the Memorandum explaining the provisions of Finance Bill 2015 with respect to amendment proposed w.e.f 1/6/2015 in section 269SS is relevant and reproduced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
